Looks like I unintentionally touched a raw nerve in the pc left...
by Jay Knott
(11/05/11)
⇌ (Gilad)

The purpose of my previous post was not to provoke the author of 'Red Scribblings' into showing how pc leftism corrupts even its most sincere converts. But that's what has happened. It turns out the author's commitment to debate was shallow, and I've been made to look foolish by thinking otherwise.

Red makes no attempt to address my arguments about whether Israel is a strategic asset of the USA. He or she follows the same technique as Jeffrey Goldberg's attack on John Mearsheimer for supporting Gilad Atzmon - http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/mearsheimer-responds-to-goldbergs-latest-smear.html - rather than addressing the salient points, digging around the internet, trying to find remarks by the author which sound bad out of context but have nothing to do with the actual discussion, backed by a stream of wild, abusive and unsubstantiated allegations of racism and other thought crimes.

The post says this site contains 'unambiguously racist material' without saying what that is (I have no idea).

Red says he or she is prepared to debate, then uses exactly the same approach he/she claims to disagrees with - quoting irrelevantly out of context, misquoting, and making allegations without citations. One great advantage of what he/she calls a 'class line' is it enables you to dismiss some arguments without having to explain why you think they are wrong - you just shout 'racism', 'sexism' or whatever, and you can rule them out a priori.

He or she claims I'm 'obsessed with dislike for Jews, Muslims, gypsies, blacks' without attempting to prove this outrageous claim. In fact, I have made numerous comments savagely denouncing Islamophobia, for example on the site "Islam Today Oregon".

And s/he bars me from replying, because I 'demonize gypsies'. I don't - I just said some of them sometimes occupy an area and trash it - I know this from personal experience. According to political correctness, I'm not allowed to say it. It should be no more controversial than saying sometimes black kids mug people, or a few white skinheads occasionally beat up Bangladeshis. (I don't mean to equate the two - of course I realize that one group is oppressed, where the other is privileged). It looks like the comment that finally got me barred from Lenin's Tomb was "The community isn't just capitalism. Ethnic identity isn't just 'racism'. Maybe it's not ALL socially constructed".

I'm sorry, but my comment “when a religious community contains a small minority who hate the host culture so much they are prepared to blow themselves up killing members of it, reaction occurs” is simply a description of how Islamic terrorism provokes hate. It in no way justifies that reaction. It doesn't justify the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. It doesn't deny that Western countries have murdered many more Muslims than the other way round. But the left is so obssessed with political correctness, you can't say anything which appears to give credence to the enemy, even if it is true.

Incidentally, the author of the site DOES justify the so-called 'Libyan revolution', despite NATO's support for it:

"Muslim men in Bradford allegedly see white girls as ‘fair game’" is also a statement of fact. On "Lenin's Tomb" I quoted an article on the BBC saying that ex-MP Jack Straw alleged this is true of some Muslim men.

S/he says my sentiments are "similar to that of the English Defence League chanting ‘Allah is a terrorist, Allah is a paedo’ while stomping around Asian/Muslim areas attacking members of the public", without explaining what 'sentiments' I have that lead to assaults against innocent people.

Political correctness is different in Britain to the US. In the UK, being Muslim gets more points.

Do Marxism and other left-wing ideologies inevitably lead to self-referential cults that cannot be corrected from the outside, because they always exclude refutation by screaming 'heresy'?